HBA-MPM S.B. 563 77(R)    BILL ANALYSIS


Office of House Bill AnalysisS.B. 563
By: Armbrister
Criminal Jurisprudence
5/4/2001
Engrossed



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Currently, the best interest of innocent property owners in a criminal
asset forfeiture proceeding may not be protected in cases in which the
seized property was either obtained from the innocent property owner by
criminal means or was acquired with proceeds from property obtained by
criminal means.  Senate Bill 563 provides that the property of an owner or
interest holder may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder proves
that the property was stolen from the owner or interest holder, purchased
with money stolen from the owner or interest holder or with proceeds from
the sale of the stolen property, or used without the permission of the
owner or interest holder.  

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does
not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency, or institution. 

ANALYSIS

Senate Bill 563 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to provide that an
owner or interest holder's interest in property may not be forfeited if at
the forfeiture hearing the owner or interest holder proves by a
preponderance of the evidence that the owner or interest holder was not a
party to the offense giving rise to the forfeiture and that the contraband: 

_was stolen from the owner or interest holder before being used in the
commission of the offense; 
_was purchased with money stolen from the owner or interest holder or with
proceeds from the sale of property stolen from the owner or interest
holder; or 
_was used or intended to be used without the effective consent of the owner
or interest holder in the commission of the offense. 

An attorney representing the state who has a reasonable belief that the
property subject to forfeiture meets the above description and who has a
reasonable belief as to the identity of the rightful owner or interest
holder of the property is required to notify the owner or interest holder.
However, the attorney is not liable in an action for damages resulting from
an act or omission in the attorney's performance of duties imposed by the
required notification.  The bill provides that the exclusive remedy for
failure by the attorney to provide the notice is submission of that failure
as a ground for new trial in a motion for new trial or bill of review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2001.